on Facebook
on Twitter
on YouTube
Research Projects
Economic Responses and DHS Implementation of the SAFETY Act
Principal Investigators: Steve Garber, John Romley, Tom LaTourrette
The “Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act”(SAFETY Act), which is subtitle G of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, shields sellers of qualifying anti-terrorism technologies (ATTs) from liability for personal injuries and property damage caused by or related to a terrorist attack. Liability protection is provided only to sellers who apply to and receive approval from the DHS for specific ATTs. In reviewing and deciding on applications, DHS has wide discretion concerning criteria to apply and how to weight them on a case-by-case basis. The goal of this project, which is funded through the ICJ by RAND’s Independent Research and Development program, is to develop insights that could help DHS make approval decisions that best support the goal of limiting losses from terrorism by focusing on economic considerations that appear to be receiving little, if any, attention from DHS. Broadly stated, these considerations are how responses to DHS approval decisions by potential and actual ATT sellers and buyers will affect the profitability of deploying existing ATTs and incentives to develop new ATTs and, thereby, the market availability and extent of use of ATTs in the near and longer terms. Our research questions consider potential rules of thumb for DHS and ask whether such economic responses could substantially undermine intuition that seemingly supports these rules. For example: a) could protection from terrorism be undermined by approving too many ATTs aimed at protecting against the same attack mode? and b) should DHS ever approve an application for an ATT that is not state of the art? To guide our thinking about these complex questions, we are developing and analyzing models of how DHS decisions affect current and future availability of ATTs. The goal is to identify combinations of a) technical and economic characteristics of ATTs, b) the terrorism threats they are intended to address, and c) numbers and attributes of potential ATT sellers and buyers for which DHS failure to consider economic responses could substantially undermine the anti-terrorism benefits of the SAFETY Act.
Back to Top